Legal Opinion · Dissent

Centric-Jones Co. v. Hufnagel

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided March 29, 1993No. 92SA407Published

1DissentJustice Yollack

In declining to apply fundamental principles of contract law to offers of settlement, the majority concludes that, pursuant to section 13-17-202(3), 6A C.R.S. (1992 Supp.), “an offer of settlement remains open for the entire ten-day period, regardless of whether the offer is rejected.” Maj. op. at 946. I disagree. I conversely find that well settled canons of statutory construction and fundamental principles of contract law dictate that an offer of settlement made pursuant to section 13-17-202(3) is revocable. I also conclude that, in the present case, Centric-Jones rejected the settlement…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Mallory v. EyrichCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1991
  2. Martha Johnson and Delores J. Ceballos, Etc. v. University College of the University of Alabama in Birmingham George W. Campbell, Etc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983
  3. Trimble v. City and County of DenverSupreme Court of Colorado · 1985
  4. Dunlap v. Colorado Springs Cablevision, Inc.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1992
  5. Ronald J. Radecki and Radecki's Service, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation v. Amoco Oil Company, a Maryland CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1988

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API